SaintsInDome2006 747 Posted January 30, 2018 The revised 702 bill was signed by Trump about two weeks ago. RR renewed the FISA warrant on Page in April of 2017. They didn't revise anything, they just renewed it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted January 30, 2018 And lol at the libtards. A year ago they were screaming that we have to trust our intelligence community, muh Russia. Now they are saying the intelligence community is lying, the memo is just partisan fiction. These people are dumb. Devin Nunes isnt the intelligence community. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted January 30, 2018 The man fighting for the quashing of the memo on political basis, lauding the prosecution of leash laws. Face it, Mueller's main witnesses were duds and the FISA memo could be his undoing. Not surprising you want it silenced. Duds? How so? You think Mueller is done? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SenatorRock 708 Posted January 30, 2018 Devin Nunes isnt the intelligence community.What do you think memo is based on? Hint: classified documents. That is why anyone who wanted to read it had to use a scif. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SenatorRock 708 Posted January 30, 2018 Memo to be released immediately after SOTU, per CNN. Boom. Libs on suicide watch. FBI/DOJ from Obama administration on arkancide watch. http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/213/579/ab1.gif Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted January 30, 2018 What do you think memo is based on? Hint: classified documents. That is why anyone who wanted to read it had to use a scif. Psst...its his memo...his summary of what he claims is in there. He is not the Intelligence Community. I trust the intelligence community...I don't trust a guy like Nunes...you do only because he is a Republican. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted January 30, 2018 Memo to be released immediately after SOTU, per CNN. Boom. Libs on suicide watch. FBI/DOJ from Obama administration on arkancide watch. http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/213/579/ab1.gif Immediately after? Ooof...so the set up is Trump saying something about Mueller and the investigation in the SOTU...trying to get people to quickly turn attention to something else after he says it. Suicide watch...not at all. This likely won't go over how you think...buckle up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baker Boy 1,711 Posted January 30, 2018 Meh Thanks...wont likely be in much. Honestly havent missed the place. Guess who has over 100 posts in the last 24 hours. Yup, the Slo HagFish! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted January 30, 2018 What I just posted you is a reference from the same Judicial Watch Foia. - eta - It actually says - on page 2 - that on 3/11/15 McCabe informed the office of his wife's running and sought guidance on conflicts. Yeah and he STILL djdn't officially recuse himself until Nov 1st, 2016 AFTER it was pretty much all said and done. Are you even debating that or just trying to prove he has integrity? Integrity is pretty much black and white. He was part of a conspiracy to let HRC walk and frame Trump. Not a beacon of integrity jn anyone's eyes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted January 30, 2018 Anyone ever stop and wonder why the Dossier didn't contain any of Trump's dealings domestically and other countries but really only focused on Russia? Opposition research is about getting dirt on people and any dirt will do. If Trump is so corrupt there should be plenty of evidence globally. Simple answer is it's fiction to support the FISA Warrants and later take down a sitting President. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted January 30, 2018 They didn't revise anything, they just renewed it. They renewed it with greater protections for gathering and unmasking. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted January 30, 2018 It gets even better. Nunes hasn't even seen the underlying source material for a memo he has crafted. http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/01/24/nunes.letter.pdf#page=1&zoom=110,17,955 Seeking Committee approval of public release would require HPSCI committee members to vote on a staff-drafted memorandum that purports to be based on classified source materials that neither you nor most of them have seen. On page 2 of the DOJ letter to Nunes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 747 Posted January 30, 2018 Yeah and he STILL djdn't officially recuse himself until Nov 1st, 2016 AFTER it was pretty much all said and done. Are you even debating that or just trying to prove he has integrity? Integrity is pretty much black and white. He was part of a conspiracy to let HRC walk and frame Trump. Not a beacon of integrity jn anyone's eyes. I think you and I are not communicating very well. Maybe it's my fault. I'm pointing out - using Judicial Watch Foia'd documents- that McCabe self reported and sought guidance on recusal from FBI OIC in March 2015. He did recuse himself from political corruption cases in VA per instruction. So yes I think that does show integrity. He joined the Hillary investigation in his role of oversight (not an investigator) in February 2016 3 months after his wife was no longer campaigning & 7 months after the Hillary investigation had been underway without him. It's true that he did not recuse himself at that time, but his recusal - in March 2015 - was based on his wife's campaign, not the money received, in the first place, and that was long over. There's still no indication that even in November 2016 that his recusal was required. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IMMensaMind 462 Posted January 30, 2018 Know why not a stitch of that memo has been leaked? Even though many Dems have now been privy to read it? Because not one word of it makes any Republican look bad. It's all FBI and Dems which look bad. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted January 30, 2018 It gets even better. Nunes hasn't even seen the underlying source material for a memo he has crafted. http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/01/24/nunes.letter.pdf#page=1&zoom=110,17,955 On page 2 of the DOJ letter to Nunes. Page one clearly says they DID provide 1,000 pages of classified material to Nunes and crew. That's what he and Gowdy derived it from. Such a hack..... Also, FBI Director fired McCabe over it AFTER threatening for months to resign if he was forced to fire McCabe. Any sane individual would find that is very telling. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted January 30, 2018 Know why not a stitch of that memo has been leaked? Even though many Dems have now been privy to read it? Because not one word of it makes any Republican look bad. It's all FBI and Dems which look bad. Great point. The proven leaker Schiff knows he's being watched too. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted January 30, 2018 Know why not a stitch of that memo has been leaked? Even though many Dems have now been privy to read it? Because not one word of it makes any Republican look bad. It's all FBI and Dems which look bad. a. the FBI people you are discussing (McCabe, Comey...and so on) are Republicans. b. you mean a panel, led by republicans, information only viewed by Gowdy and his staffers (republicans) and a memo written by Nunes (a very shady republican) is going to not be bad about the GOP? No focking sherlock. The memo is designed for one thing...to put doubt on the ongoing investigations surrounding the 2016 election. This seems painfully obvious to any thinking person. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baker Boy 1,711 Posted January 30, 2018 FBI officials review surveillance memo, could not cite 'any factual inaccuracies' http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/30/fbi-officials-review-surveillance-memo-could-not-cite-any-factual-inaccuracies-source.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IMMensaMind 462 Posted January 30, 2018 a. the FBI people you are discussing (McCabe, Comey...and so on) are Republicans. They're as 'republican' as John McCain and Mitch McConnell. They're dirty Establishment. b. you mean a panel, led by republicans, information only viewed by Gowdy and his staffers (republicans) and a memo written by Nunes (a very shady republican) is going to not be bad about the GOP? No focking ###### sherlock. The memo is designed for one thing...to put doubt on the ongoing investigations surrounding the 2016 election. This seems painfully obvious to any thinking person. You'll have plenty of opportunity to take issue with any particular point in that memo and destroy it for the BS which it is. Of course, so could have any number of Progs who have already read it, and said not a damned thing to contest one syllable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IMMensaMind 462 Posted January 30, 2018 FBI officials review surveillance memo, could not cite 'any factual inaccuracies' http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/30/fbi-officials-review-surveillance-memo-could-not-cite-any-factual-inaccuracies-source.html Oooohhh NNOOOOOOOOEEEESS Shonuff? Now what? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted January 30, 2018 They're as 'republican' as John McCain and Mitch McConnell. They're dirty Establishment. You'll have plenty of opportunity to take issue with any particular point in that memo and destroy it for the BS which it is. Of course, so could have any number of Progs who have already read it, and said not a damned thing to contest one syllable. A memo without underlying support is almost meaningless to normal people. And the author of the memo hasnt seen the underlying documentation himself. Yet opined on it. Um...Schiff who has seen has called it out big time. But what would henknow about intel work...right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IMMensaMind 462 Posted January 30, 2018 A memo without underlying support is almost meaningless to normal people. That would explain the leaks of the memo contents specifics, and how they've been absolutely destroyed for lack of credibility. Oh. Wait. And the author of the memo hasnt seen the underlying documentation himself. Yet opined on it. Um...Schiff who has seen has called it out big time. But what would henknow about intel work...right? Called what aspect of it out, exactly? Certainly hope you're not a Schiff fan. One LOOK at that guy should net a thinking person the conclusion that he's a focking weasel. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted January 30, 2018 Oooohhh NNOOOOOOOOEEEESS Shonuff? Now what?Unnamed sources citing unnamed FBI people reported in FoxNews is credible now too?You all are the most gullible people ever Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted January 30, 2018 FBI officials review surveillance memo, could not cite 'any factual inaccuracies' http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/30/fbi-officials-review-surveillance-memo-could-not-cite-any-factual-inaccuracies-source.html As I said, Dems aren't calling the memo false so they're against the truth getting out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted January 30, 2018 Unnamed sources citing unnamed FBI people reported in FoxNews is credible now too? You all are the most gullible people ever mega irony alert!!!! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted January 30, 2018 mega irony alert!!!! Not at all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted January 30, 2018 Good point mensa, no leaks. Imagine that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IMMensaMind 462 Posted January 30, 2018 Unnamed sources citing unnamed FBI people reported in FoxNews is credible now too? You all are the most gullible people ever Wait. Now you don't like unnamed sources???? :rofl: 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IMMensaMind 462 Posted January 30, 2018 Schiff looks exactly like I'd expect a Democrat to look. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted January 30, 2018 Wait. Now you don't like unnamed sources???? :rofl: Other way around...now you all like unnamed sources?Ive always treated single source unnamed sources with skepticism... You all have consistently whine about multiple sources when they arent named even when corroborating the information. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted January 30, 2018 Schiff looks exactly like I'd expect a Democrat to look. I see your Schiff and raise you Godwys ears and creepy raised eyebrows. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IMMensaMind 462 Posted January 30, 2018 Other way around...now you all like unnamed sources? I didn't post it. I responded to get your reaction. You gave it, and exposed hypocrisy in so doing. I'm the one wondering why the Dems don't want a memo they say is bullsht/made up/harmless...released. You're the guy squirming like a worm on the end of a sharp hook. Ive always treated single source unnamed sources with skepticism... ORLY. You all have consistently whine about multiple sources when they arent named even when corroborating the information. My position on this memo has absolutely nothing to do with unnamed sources. I can tell what this is about strictly how the Dems are acting, and - especially in the case of not leaking a single thing, particularly by the sieve GooglyEyes himself - telling me everything I need to know both about the veracity of the memo, and the damage that it will do. That 'unnamed sources' in the FBI have claimed to have not come up with any challenges to characterization in the memo fits with what I already know. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IMMensaMind 462 Posted January 30, 2018 I see your Schiff and raise you Godwys ears and creepy raised eyebrows. You don't raise a straight flush with a pair of two's, bubba. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted January 30, 2018 I didn't post it. I responded to get your reaction. You gave it, and exposed hypocrisy in so doing. I'm the one wondering why the Dems don't want a memo they say is bullsht/made up/harmless...released. You're the guy squirming like a worm on the end of a sharp hook. ORLY. My position on this memo has absolutely nothing to do with unnamed sources. I can tell what this is about strictly how the Dems are acting, and - especially in the case of not leaking a single thing, particularly by the sieve GooglyEyes himself - telling me everything I need to know both about the veracity of the memo, and the damage that it will do. That 'unnamed sources' in the FBI have claimed to have not come up with any challenges to characterization in the memo fits with what I already know. You exposed my hypocrisy...you claim. Yet you made a big deal about the article...so do you or do you not believe unnamed source? How about multiple sources? Which is more credible? You exposed nothing but your own ignorance. There are republicans including parts of the DOJ who dont want this released. Because of the possibility that it exposes things that damage the ability of our intel community to do their job...and the likelihood that uninformed rubes will ol take it completely wrong because of the lack of context and support. Look at how this memo (that reports seem to indicate is mostly about one specific FISA renewal for a guy who was a foreign agent in Carter Page)...its being treated as though its exposing widespread corruption throughout the Intelligence community. And that its Nunes shouldnlead any reasonable person to be skeptical. But we know Trump guys here are not reasonable people. You all have proven that. The fact that Nunes balled at sharing with the DOJ for review and rebuttal and with the senate intel committee is verybtelling. But you wont agree with that of course... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted January 30, 2018 You don't raise a straight flush with a pair of two's, bubba. You didnt look at your cards very well Chief. They are both goofy looking fockers Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted January 30, 2018 Trey Gowdy saying Schiff will be embarrassed by trying to help surpress. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Strike 6,030 Posted January 30, 2018 A dossier without underlying support is almost meaningless to normal people Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted January 30, 2018 A dossier without underlying support is almost meaningless to normal peopleQuality ignoring again.BTW...the dossier in its own is almost meaningless yes. Has anyone suggested otherwise? Also...Steele has 1000x more credibility than Devin Nunes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted January 30, 2018 Quality ignoring again. BTW...the dossier in its own is almost meaningless yes. Has anyone suggested otherwise? Also...Steele has 1000x more credibility than Devin Nunes. says who Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted January 30, 2018 says who Anyone with a focking clue? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
